Cases 31 - 40 of 909
Pierre v. O'Malley
as 3:2024cv00346
Plaintiff:
Della Pierre
Defendant:
Martin O'Malley
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405 Review of HHS Decision (DIWC)
American Transit Insurance Company v. Pierre et al
as 1:2024cv00360
Plaintiff:
American Transit Insurance Company
Defendant:
Bradley Pierre, Marvin Moy, M.D., Rutland Medical P.C. and others
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1962 Racketeering (RICO) Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2024cv01885
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
Pierre v. Garland
as 24-355
Petitioner:
STANLEY PIERRE
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL
Pierre v. Doe et al
as 1:2023cv11248
Plaintiff:
Katheline M. Pierre
Defendant:
Jane Doe and UPS
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
Caldwell v. City of New York et al
as 1:2023cv10730
Plaintiff:
GARY CALDWELL, AFUWAPE ABOLADE, BARBARA ABRAMSON and others
Defendant:
CITY OF NEW YORK, The Fire Department of New York and The Fire Department of the City of New York
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 020
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 7:2023cv10590
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act
Doe v. Combs et al
as 1:2023cv10628
Plaintiff:
Jane Doe
Defendant:
Sean Combs, Harve Pierre, The Third Assailant and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity Action
Clark v. State of Connecticut et al
as 3:2023cv01527
Plaintiff:
Gordon Clark
Defendant:
State of Connecticut, Office of Governor Ned Lamont, Ned Lamont and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Pierre v. Suffolk County Police Department 1st Pct. et al
as 2:2023cv08886
Plaintiff:
Stanley Pierre
Defendant:
Suffolk County Police Department 1st Pct., John Doe # 1, John Doe # 2 and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
